Who "are" the sons of GOD in Genesis 6?

[Pastor N.B.]

Originally posted by wblastyn
Do you mean someone here is 7th day adventist? Who?

*************

Hi, (no, I am not Seventh-day Adventist)
the 'thread is about who are the Sons of God"? And as you study the Gen. chapter's, just perhaps you will see that Adam, Cain & Abel were all Sons of God for a while at least? At least until Cain decided that he would bring his offering of fruit instead of the Lamb Sacrifice. The belief in Gen. 3:15 made them all of NO CONDENMATION in Christ! (see those in the Faith in Rom. 8:1) But AFTER CAINS REBELLION? He became the evil 'SPIRITUAL' son of 's'atan the serpent!
"And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Inspiration states! Whose son did that make him? (try Rev. 3:9 & Matt. 23:15)

Then in Gen.4:6-7 we see that the 'd'evil became his new master. (desire)
Now I doubt that any would question which day that they [all kept] up until Cain BECAME MATURE? (try Rev. 22:9) So lets just think that if Cain had started keeping Sunday instead of the Memorial of creation, (see Psalms 135:13) do you think that God just might accept that offering? See 1 John 2:4----P/N/B/

PS: And yes, these are interesting inspired Words from a God that is the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever! And He also states elsewhere that 'HE CHANGETH NOT'!

 

[Andrew]

hey wblastyn,

just read your post "Enoch supports it". it was very interesting. THANKS!

 

[npetreley]

PBO: For what it's worth, I agree with most if not all of your interpretation of this section of Genesis. I even started a similar thread in the wrong forum called "Goliath: Who's your daddy?" - asking where the Anakites came from if everyone but Noah and his family perished in the flood. I don't know if the Nephilim reappeared because the angels did the same thing again, or if some of the Nephilim somehow survived. The latter would seem to plainly contradict scripture, but I haven't done an exhaustive study of the Hebrew to see if it really does.

I also suspect that if we had a reliable copy of the books of Enoch, they might be canonical. I don't know why G~d wouldn't deliberately preserve Enoch in that case, but He has a reason for everything. Regardless, I find the books of Enoch fascinating.

 

[JohnR7]

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

IMO, that's what is meant in Jude 1:6-7

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Certainly the angels weren't meant or created to marry or mess around with humans, but the text implies that they rebelled and did it anyway. In addition to the supporting text from Enoch, Jude seems to draw a connection between the sin of the angels with the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah of "going after strange flesh".

Also, you mentioned this may have something to do with a scientific mind. I don't see how science even enters into this. Speaking only for myself, my view on this topic comes straight from the Bible. We may disagree, but as far as I can see it isn't on the grounds of science. Perhaps you were motivated to say that because PBO mentioned genetic changes. That took me aback for a moment, too, but then I realized that if the nephilim were giants, I guess that would have to mean their genetics were changed somehow to make them that way. Perhaps there is another reason, but that seemed logical to me and it was rather inconsequential to the topic, IMO.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by npetreley
Certainly the angels weren't meant or created to marry or mess around with humans, but the text implies that they rebelled and did it anyway.

The text does not imply that at all. That comes from the book of Enoch. A non cannonized  book written around 200 bc & yet it claims to be written by Enoch himself or his grandson. Yet there are many referances in the book to historical events that took place long after Enoch was taken up to be with God.

I go by the word of God, and I will not accept a referance to a book that is not cannonized as being the inspired word of God. I am here to talk about the Bible, not Apocryphal books. Or if you want to talk about the Apocryphal then my position is: They are not scripture and so they are not useful for doctrine, reproof or correction. Only scripture has been approved and shown to be inspired by God.

2 Tim. 3:16-17  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


To try and use the book of Enoch to "prove" that angels procreated with man, is no different than the Catholic Church using the Apocryphal to establish there is a purgatory.

  


  

 

 

[Pastor N.B.]

Originally posted by npetreley

I also suspect that if we had a reliable copy of the books of Enoch, they might be canonical. I don't know why G~d wouldn't deliberately preserve Enoch in that case, but He has a reason for everything. Regardless, I find the books of Enoch fascinating. [/B]

******
Forum:
I suspect that Eve found the serpent 'fascinating' also? One & she was his perhaps?

Aw, come on now, hath God really said, "ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?' -------P/N/B/

PS: Why the test? and in the midst of the garden even! Naw, no test, huh? They were just as saved & perfect as we are in Rom. 8:1.

 

[Andrew]

npetreley,

quote:"Certainly the angels weren't meant or created to marry or mess around with humans, but the text implies that they rebelled and did it anyway. In addition to the supporting text from Enoch, Jude seems to draw a connection between the sin of the angels with the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah of "going after strange flesh"."

Besides Jude, there are other verses in the NT that support this:
http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/giants.html

 

[Pastor N.B.]

Originally posted by Andrew
npetreley,

****
Hay JohnR7,
P/N/B here: I don't know why some of us can't just fall in line & realize that some of these missive posters, just might have two horn's too? ( )

Yet, on a more serious note, verse 12 was left out by the poster below.
"These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, [carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, TWICE DEAD, plucked up by the roots ..." (in part)
The WINDS in this passage is, every wind of doctrine that we are being bombarded with today! And from whom is the question?
****

quote:"Certainly the angels weren't meant or created to marry or mess around with humans, but the text implies that they rebelled and did it anyway. In addition to the supporting text from Enoch, Jude seems to draw a connection between the sin of the angels with the sexual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah of "going after strange flesh"."

Besides Jude, there are other verses in the NT that support this:
http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/giants.html

 

[JohnR7]

What horns are you talking about? The horns of the altar?

Psalm 118:27
God is the Lord,
And He has given us light;
Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar.

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

 

[snoopyloopysk8a]

5) The Result--"There were GIANTS IN THE EARTH in those days; and ALSO AFTER THAT, WHEN THE SONS OF GOD came in unto the DAUGHTERS OF MEN, and THEY BARE THEM CHILDREN!!!"

Yah, I've wondered about them too.

 

[adam332]

Pastor Bob,
you said;

"...this title "sons of GOD" only appears 5 times in the entire OT, and it "never" refers to humans, but "always" to angelic beings (wether good or evil)..."

Sorry, but that is not correct...

Hos. 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.


The truth be known...there is ONLY one out of those 5 references that we can be sure whom is titled such, humans. The question is not why we should consider the other references to possibly be human, the question is why we shoudn't. How about the 6 NT references to the "sons of God"? They all confirm the one OT verse that we are sure of, they refer to humans as well.


We know that Christ is the creator of this world and all it's inhabitants...but we also know that He framed all the worlds. We know that this is the world in which satan was cast down and spread his seed of sin among this worlds inhabitants.


But, what about the other worlds? Do they have inhabitants of an unfallen nature not affected by Satan's sinful influence? When Satan showed up, (at the meeting referenced in Job), as the representative for Earth, because he was the prince of this world,...then would it not make perfect Biblical logic for the Sons of God also in attendance to be representatives of their perspective worlds?


The foundation for your assertions are leading your conclusion in the opposite direction from what is already known. I find it to be a inappropiate method of study.

 

[greeker57married]

In the context of Gen. 4:25-26, 5:1-6, the "Sons of God" of Gen. 6:2, is referring to the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of men" is referring to the line of ungodly Cain. God was apposed to His people marrying the ungodly or pagan. As He is today. The Hebrew term for Giants "nephilim" refers not so much to the idea of great height, but of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters. In other words in Gen. 6:4, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days." They are referred to as "men of renown." They were men mighty in wickedness and sin, not necessarily giants. In verses 5-7 God says he will blot out man, (not giants)

There are many Godly pastors and teachers who hold that the "Sons of God refers to fallen angels. I respect that view, but do not agree with it.

God Bless,
Greeker

 

[Apologist]

I agree with Greeker.
There are two viewpoints on this subject, the one that was given and the one that says that the "sons of God" were the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of women" were the godless line of Cain. I think that the second explaination is the most biblical. To say that the "sons of God" were angelic beings that created bodies for themselves and had intercourse with human women has more to do with mythology than with the Christian worldview.
Beyond that, if demons had the power to do this in the past then what prohibits them from doing it now?

 

[jbarcher]

Hi, in my lap is a book titled, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer, copyright 1982 by The Zondervan Corporation.

On p.79 is the question, "Does "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 refer to angels?"

To take a few points from it (and not out of context, I don't have the time to type it all up 'though I'd like to):

- Angels are spirits, Heb. 1:14, and while on occasion may appear in bodily form in the semblance of men, they have no physical bodies
- The rabbinic speculation that angels are referred to in Gen 6:2 is a curious intrusion of pagan superstition that has no basis at all in the rest of Scripture
- What Gen 6:1-2, 4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards
- In other words, the "sons of God" in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth
- Apologist, post #74, the book concurs with the definition of "daughters of women" being the godless line of Cain
- Lastly, if we were to concede that spirits could somehow enter into sexual relations with human beings--which they cannot--then they could not even so be fitted in with this passage here. If there were minions of Satan, that is, fallen angels, then they could not have been referred to as "sons of God". Demons of hell would never be so designated in Scripture. Nor could they have been angels of God, since GOd's angels always live in total obedience to Him and have no other yearning or desire but to do God's will and glorify His name. A sordid involvement with godless young women would therefore be completely out of character for angels as "sons of God."

 

[pmarquette]

Your a pastor and you do not know what a son of God is? If I were you, I would quit calling myself a pastor tell I found out what a son of God is <<==== ???

Have you examined the passages he cites or looked at the passages in the book of Job and Zechariah , or do we ignore witnesses in old covenant entirely ?

sons of God can refer to Angels , earthly believer's [saints], fallen angels , God's created beings ....

 

[Peter North]

I have heard this theory about angels sleeping with human women as well. Never really followed up on my questions but thanks for making this post.

 

[pmarquette]

. Where in the Bible does it state that angels can pro-create?

2. Since angels are male, (at least that's what I've heard) if they were made to procreate, who where they made to have sex with? What would be the point of them being able to do something they could not do righteously?

the sons of god and the daugters of men .... only 1 witness , perception " angels " , might be possessed , fallen , back slidden .... some what doctrine of Angelology , Hartmology , etc. ... the foundation of demons , the progeny of this union , the formation of giants , the sons of Anak ... Goliath ., etc.
..... don't really say Jesus said will be as angels who neither marry or are given in marriage - which is a quote from the book of Tobit , used by the pharisees to trick Jesus - Mt.22.30

 

[Apologist]

There is one other problem here that was never mentioned.
If fallen angels have the ability to create bodies for themselves then Jesus' appearance to the Apostles after His resurrection could have been a fallen angel impersonating him could it not? Jesus told them to feel him because, "A Spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
I believe in this statement by Christ that He was giving the ontological answer to what a spirit is and is not.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[jbarcher]

Sounds good. I'll remember that.